Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday December 11, 2015 @03:11PM
from the mo'-money-mo'-workers dept.

dcblogs writes: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, has morphed from a vocal supporter of the H-1B program to a leading critic of it. He has done so in a new H-1B reform bill (PDF) that sets a minimum wage of $110,000 for H-1B workers. By raising the cost of temporary visa workers, Cruz is hoping to discourage their use. Cruz also wants to eliminate Optional Practical Training Program (OPT). The co-sponsor of this bill, The American Jobs First Act of 2015, is U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who called the OPT program "a backdoor method for replacing American workers."

Yea, I noticed that too... But still, Mr. Lewis certainly wouldn't have the same politics and I think he'd be more interesting to listen too. However, who he looks like has nothing to do with his politics....

I'm sorry, but any party that has Social Justice as part of it's platform is militantly authoritarian. That's a fault of the left in general, and the reason their economic and political systems were responsible for so many millions of deaths in the 20th century.

No way will corporations and the lobbying of the chamber of commerce allow this intrusion of socialism to harm profits! Every.com and software company in existence will freak out and open their wallets in unifying opposition!

I guess it shows the goverment hasn't worked for it's people in the US for a long time now. This is a show for votes as no way this will pass.

It's self-serving, I'm sure. Somebody's paying him. The guy's already demonstrated that he's a dick-for-hire. Just because some asshole comes up with an idea that might make ME money doesn't make him any less of an asshole.

No way will corporations and the lobbying of the chamber of commerce allow this intrusion of socialism to harm profits! Every.com and software company in existence will freak out and open their wallets in unifying opposition!

Silicon Valley tech companies that hire H-1Bs won't care much. Very few of their H-1B employees make less than $110K anyway. If the definition of "wage" includes not just base salary but also bonus (actual awarded amount) and stock (actual value, not some notional future value), then it's likely that all of their H-1B employees already meet this requirement.

Silicon Valley tech companies that hire H-1Bs won't care much. Very few of their H-1B employees make less than $110K anyway. If the definition of "wage" includes not just base salary but also bonus (actual awarded amount) and stock (actual value, not some notional future value), then it's likely that all of their H-1B employees already meet this requirement.

I suppose that these workers might have received some significant additional compensation above their salary, but my guess is that the probability is pretty close to zero.

These top three companies received 46,277 visas, which is over half of the total visa issued. Their average salaries are way below $110k.

If the speculation that companies above abuse H1B visas by importing low-wage earners is true, then the $110k wage limit would eliminate those visa uses. Of course, that assumes that the changes forces companies to actually pay that much. I can easily think of many ways to circumvent the $110k limit, including paying that amount and deducting most of it back (a la indentured servitude).

But the key point is that the abuse is predicated on saving money for the ultimate users of the companies' services. Kill off the financial incentive, and the problem completely disappears.

There is actually a reasonable case for some companies to need something like an H1B. There are actually quite a few US companies that pay decent H1B wages. Instituting a minimum financial threshold allows separation of these arguably more legitimate cases from the arguably job killing cases.

What we're talking about, is that the jobs us Americans are working, for $75,000 would pay over $100,000. Except rather than pay what the market demands, the companies import workers on H1B visas. They claim, they can't find the talent. Utter BS, often they replaced trained with untrained workers, and have the trained workers train their replacements.

But you see, if you can hire imported workers for $60K-$70K, then you never have to pay the market value. And you can force Americans into lower pay. It's basic economics of supply and demand.

And GUESS WHY that pay average is around $60K-$70K, because that was the $110K of yesteryear. That was the amount that if the salary exceeded, they never get investigated for wage sinking. And guess what, $60K in 1990 when H1B visas went into effect, if adjusted for inflation would now be $110K. So all Ted Cruz is asking for is the originally minimum salary cap being put back in effect. All laws passed should be inflation adjusted, if so, then it would already be $110K

You're figures are fine except that Hr1B visa holders DO NOT payfederal income tax (I'm not sure of the particulars, but it's true).

So their effective salary is significantly higher than the stated values.

CAP === 'accord'

I have no idea where you get your information, but H1B visa holder are required to pay all federal, state, local taxes including FICA (Social Security) and Medicare.

The only exception I am aware of is that if you by some circumstances become a non-resident-alien of the US for part of the year (hired mid-year, or terminated mid-year), you can dual-status and only pay US taxes on your US based income and a flat 30% on non-US connected income (normally you have to pay US taxes on your worldwide income although you can claim an exemption for taxes you paid to another country).

Your confusion might be that those on OPT (practical training) temporary visas which often are used by college graduates before they get H1Bs are exempt from FICA and medicare, but are still not exempt from other state and federal income taxes. OPT used to be a max of 1 year, but now it is 2 years.

Instead of dreaming, perhaps you need to look in the mirror and see why corporations would rather employ Joe Unknown from the other side of the world than you. If you have value, you will always get a job over someone trying the H-1B route. Presumably you have limited skills and no experience. And "web" isn't a skill, bad luck.

Tell that to the former senior engineers at Texas Instruments who were laid off while making $150k while their Indian replacements were paid $50k.

Tell that to the former senior engineers at Texas Instruments who were laid off while making $150k while their Indian replacements were paid $50k.

Who cares? It was a business decision by those who OWN the business - it was either a good move and it will work out well or it wasn't and the company will suffer. If someone is as good or better than you and willing to work for a third of what you do, then suck it up and YOU have to up your game.

People here worry far too much about this crap. I've been through it multiple times, and it's actually made me much more confident in my employability. Repeatedly, I've found those people who'll accept a thi

Companies are going to do whatever makes the most money. The H1-B program gets them cheap labor in the US. Take away cheap labor, jobs will simply move offshore. If the labor is at least based in the US, those workers are still participating in the US economy.

And then those companies will realize that it's actually a bargain to pay labor costs here and get an actual working product. Every single product I've seen shipped offshore for "cheaper" labor has ultimately resulted in massive cost overruns and a product that doesn't meet expectations (at best) and frequently just doesn't work. There's a lot to be said about being able to work with your business face to face or at least in the same daylight hours when you're both awake.

OK - you can't have it both ways! If you think the H1B guys are good enough to come here and take your jobs - then they are good enough to do the same job in whichever other country will physically house them. If it turns out that those guys are best able to do the job - then you can either pay them to come here and do it (and thereby claim their taxes and have them spend their earnings in the US economy) - or you can pay them to work someplace cheaper and spend all of their earnings and pay all of thei

Horseshit! Regardless of insourcing via H1Bs, outsourcing has and will continue to occur regardless. They are, and will be, two entirely separate things. One does not effect the other. The only reason some jobs haven't moved offshore is because they're isn't a market yet for them. But cooperation do try and do both insourcing and outsourcing at the same time regardless.

Why not offshore US workers to somewhere cheaper? I'm surprised no one's proactively creating a tech hub in Latin America,

Let's say Alphabet, or some other large corp, are working on a new project that will take 3 years and employ 100 people. But the budget can only support 60 people over 2 years.

So they rent an office space in, say, Peru where the weather's fine 9 months of the year and language isn't a problem because everyone in California speaks Spanish anyway, right? So you're only a couple of hours ti

Entire restaurants can't be outsourced, but there are companies that provide order-taking services where the person actually taking the order is sitting hundreds or thousands of miles away. They enter the order into the computer and it gets relayed back to the restaurant for local employees to make. The service costs less than an employee taking the orders because the person actually taking the orders will get shifted to a different restaurant during quiet times. There's no technical reason that this can

I used to work in network operations for a company that did this sort of thing. Housewife in Minot, ND, sits down to her computer in the spare bedroom and logs in. A script pops up on her computer and her phone rings. "Welcome to Chikin Lickin, may I take your order?" When done, a minute or two later, the popup/phone again, "Thank you for calling Fat Burner Delux, the miracle weight loss supplement endorsed by Dr. Oz." It could be anything that someone had contracted with the company to do "virtual call center" for, ranging from very much upstanding legitimate companies and organizations, to... not so much.

At the time (it was years ago) their phone answering people were all U.S. based, and that was one of their selling points, that they were Americans and sounded like it. I'm not sure if that's still the case or not, but there's certainly little barrier to having phone reps anywhere on Earth.

First "loophole" I could think of off the top of my head would be: "Sure we'll pay them $110K". Oh, those jobs include no paid health benefits, no vacation, no sick leave. That could drop the "cost" of the employee down to someone making $70K.

While that sounds bad at first, it wouldn't really be horrible, heck I might even be interested in having all the cash my employer was willing to put out and leave it up to me to spend it. For couples where the other spouse has a good deal on insurance, it might be nice to have the money rather than overlapping policies.

>For couples where the other spouse has a good deal on insurance, it might be nice to have the money rather than overlapping policies.So ask for it. My wife has negotiated higher wages because she doesn't need to use her companies' health insurance.

Do you realize how f*cked up it sounds to someone outside of the US that you'd need to negotiate health insurance with a company that's hiring you? Do you negotiate police response coverage and home fire insurance as well?

It not only sounds bad, it sounds illegal. H1B workers must, by law, be paid the same as a resident worker, and get the same benefits.

Which raises a question: I'm not sure if it is legal to pay a H1B worker *more* than a normal worker. So, if you're forced to pay a H1B worker $110K, and your normal staff currently happens to earn $95K, do you (a) raise your salaries to match, or (b) tick off your current staff so they quit?

Many tech companies already pay more than $100k per employee. Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc. Making a minimum wage is a benefit for those companies, because they will be able to get more H1-B visas for themselves, whereas companies in middle-America where cost of living is lower won't be able to afford hiring people on the visa anymore.

I tend to agree in theory BUT the big corps will just take the H1B and a bunch of other jobs and move them elsewhere.

The quota would still be filled at the higher wage, but the H1-Bs would be higher quality and possess skills for positions that are actually difficult to fill, as opposed to just cutting labor costs. So it's a net benefit to the nation.

As for $110k still being too little for Silicon Valley et al.... whatever. It's a free country. Move. There are plenty of tech employers that exist in places where compensation is aligned better with costs. Your poverty is self-inflicted. Enjoy.

I just want a company officer to sign off, under penalty of perjury, on the supposed prevailing pay for the position they are seeking to fill. Right now the company gets to essentially make up a number, which no one checks and carries no penalty if anyone were to find out that they massively lowballed it. Put a company officer on the hook for it and suddenly those wages are going to jump up to a competitive level. Putting an artificial floor on the pay for visa holders is a nicely simple step that is hard to evade, but I'd really rather we just force the companies to pay the real wage for the job or have someone high ranking head to jail. There might genuinely be a job at a lower pay level that we simply can't get enough qualified Americans to fill. I don't know what it might be, but I don't want to close the door, I just want to cut back on the abuses.

It is surprising how many middle aged obsolete technology professionals you will find if you care to visit your local job career transition networking meetings. It not always that the people don't want to learn a new skill set, but more times than not, its a matter of cost of training. Its hard to fork down money for a training program if you are not working. Moreover, there is another problem in that people are reluctant to lay down cash on a skill set if they are unsure that it will be used in two year

Better yet, instead of an artificial minimum wage, have them pay the wages of the displaced worker, PLUS the cost it would take to retrain the displaced worker PLUS the cost of vetting H-1B workers by the government.

Then, a business can determine if there truly are no qualified works, is it in their best interest to import labor or train their existing labor.

Of course businesses, particularly IT ones, will complain that if they train or retrain workers, the workers will just leave and they will still be ou

that within 730 daysâ"two yearsâ"of âoean employee strike, an employer lockout, layoffs, furloughs, or other types of involuntary employee terminations other than for-cause dismissals,â a company cannot bring aboard any H-1B labor

I would prefer a substantial Federal tax (perhaps 25% of the reported W-2 income?) paid by the H-1B employer and removal of H-1B caps.

Retain the prevailing wage requirement, but when computing general prevailing wages, include the H-1B tax the employers pay in the prevailing wage calculation for H-1B workers in general (but not in the wage of the specific H-1B position that is being evaluated).

Just for show, also retain the 'must try to hire an American first' requirement - but that's really a joke as we al

"The Republican Guy, champion of the people," no one ever said. EVER. He's not going to say something like this unless he's sure it's going nowhere or he's desperate for any coverage at all in the face of the overwhelming noise emanating from The Trump Hole.

Make it easier for H1-B visa's to transfer and a generous grace period, that way good talent can stay and compete in the job market. Make it easy to do business in the U.S., just take away the ability to hold labor hostage to a visa.

It sounds to me like the Distinguished Gentleman from Texas should continue to serve as a Senator, where as an idea-man his ideas can be presented and debated, and the good ones considered for real implementation, and where bad ones could be decided against.

So since he's not arrogant and annoying anymore, are you considering him?

He's still arrogant and annoying. I was trying to point out that other candidates have come along who are more annoying. As for considering him, I've already resigned myself to the fact that we're going to have a lousy president next term, and I'm glad that the US system has shown itself resilient enough to survive that.

I don't like Ted Cruz. I don't like that he has double-standards. I think he's a hypocrite. And I don't like the platform he has chosen to run on.

But a good idea is a good idea. And when someone we disagree with shares a good idea, we should unite behind it, rather than censor it because of its source. If we don't, we just divide this nation further.

It's not though. That salary might be low in some places and high in others. It might be low in one industry or high in another. In my area/industry that's actually really low, but there are a lot of H1Bs here. Additionally, salaries change over time, do we need a federal fiat every time? Will we have to fight for "minimum indentured servant wage increase" every N years?

H1Bs should stop being granted. Offer green cards to present holders, but no more new ones. Either they come in with a green card and you take the risk that they leave or suck, or they don't come in.

I'd say it's a better idea than the current setup - which isn't saying much.

The H-1B program definitely needs to be massively overhauled. I wouldn't say it needs to be permanent residency, but it certainly needs to entitle the holder to freely move to another job, just like any other worker. The companies also need to be made to pay enough in fees for sponsoring it that they won't be making money - let's say, $100k per year of the visa. There also shouldn't be any rebates if the worker quits, so there's incentive to pay the person well and treat them well. For people who really represent such critical skills that there really is no American available to do the job, that shouldn't be an issue at all.

I aggree with this. The main problem is that H1B employees are fairly "trapped" in their job. That creates an artificial pool of employees that are likely not to leave the company which drives bargaining power down for the workers.

Also you could tie future H1B visa for a company to the number of retained H1B.

You know, not all the world is a teeming cesspit. I've had H-1B coworkers from first world countries who like living in America and want to be a part of it but who couldn't otherwise migrate in a reasonable timeframe. They're not escaping fleeing London and Paris.

The H-1B abuse that's been in the news lately is by Indian tech outsourcing firms, and it has nothing to do with low wage H-1B workers. These firms use H-1B visas to bring temporary workers to the US for the explicit purpose of documenting the jobs currently being done by US workers. Then most of the US workers are fired and replaced with offshore workers a prevailing Indian rates. This should be flat-out illegal. Having to pay these guys $100K wouldn't stop this abuse, because they're only in place for

The H-1B program definitely needs to be massively overhauled. I wouldn't say it needs to be permanent residency, but it certainly needs to entitle the holder to freely move to another job, just like any other worker.

What do you mean? H1B workers are perfectly capable of getting another job... they just have to get their new employer to file a petition for a new H1B visa... which includes (I'm sure this won't scare off any hiring managers):

Initiating a new H1B visa application including

Two or three most recent pay stubs. (Not required if the existing H-1B was never used and the transfer is applied from outside the U.S.)

Copy of your most recent H1-B approval notice, Form I-797[1]

Copy of all pages of your passport[2] (including blank ones), which is valid for your entire requested period of stay in the U.S.

Photocopy of Form I-94[3]. Do NOT send the original. You are not required to send the original. If you sent the original by mistake, and if you need it back, you can file form G-884 with USCIS. G-884 is not available online. You have to request it by mail.More details[4].

Copy of the most current visa stamp[5]. Visa stamp does not have to be unexpired.

Latest resume.

Copy of social security card[6].

All previous approval notices.

Copy of all degrees, diplomas, transcripts and mark sheets.

Copy of work experience letters, offer letters and relieving letters.

W-2's and tax returns, if applicable.

-http://www.immihelp.com/visas/h1b/h1-transfer.html

Best part is that you can start your new job right away... only drawback being that if the application gets rejected by the government then you need to immediately stop working and leave the country... but no biggie. Easy right!

The main argument against H-1B visas (at least the most vocal argument) is that big corps are using cheap foreign labor to cut costs, at the expense of American workers. Do you disagree?

Putting a high threshold on entry is an elegant solution. Much more creative and clever than the usual thinking present in Washington. Maybe the exact numbers proposed are imperfect. Those can be fiddled with easily enough. But the broad concept of a minimum

The main argument against H-1B visas (at least the most vocal argument) is that big corps are using cheap foreign labor to cut costs, at the expense of American workers. Do you disagree?

It is one strong argument citing abuse. Other good arguments are: second class (non)citizens, lack of freedom to negotiate salaries, lack of freedom to leave bad employers, not to mention idealistic failure.

Putting a high threshold on entry is an elegant solution.

It is not high for say: engineering R&D, it's quite low, entry level in some fields. It may be high for IT... hard for me to say. However it WILL sound high to a lot of voting americans, particularly the ones voting republican. It is a political stunt. Divide your enemies against each other, most americans can't differentiate between "wealthier middle class" and "filthy rich". They do this all the time in union areas to try to deflate strikes.

bringing the best and the brightest from around the world to help the USA-

Or, we give qualified candidate first dibs at green cards, and allow them to negotiate with their own employer. Some might believe this is more in the spirit of "free market" than a federal fiat is. Except we don't like free markets when they work against the rich guy.

It does not matter if it is low because it can always be higher...That it may be high in some areas is not really an issue either. You should only be hiring someone for that position if you cannot find local talent for it, by law, therefore the pay should be hiring than normal.

That salary might be low in some places and high in others. It might be low in one industry or high in another.

This.

H1-B jobs are supposed to be paid at the prevailing wage for the position and the industry it's in. We can be cynical about how some employers scoff at this and misuse H1-Bs, but the solution is to enforce the existing law, not break it with an unworkable across-the-board salary threshold.

That salary might be low in some places and high in others. It might be low in one industry or high in another.

This.

H1-B jobs are supposed to be paid at the prevailing wage for the position and the industry it's in. We can be cynical about how some employers scoff at this and misuse H1-Bs, but the solution is to enforce the existing law, not break it with an unworkable across-the-board salary threshold.

The prevailing wage is not good enough because it can be gamed and also because foreign workers can be treated more harshly because they can't quit. A better solution would be pay the h1b holder the prevailing wage but then pay an additional 50% tax on their salary on top. I wouldn't be opposed to even a 100% tax. That money should then be donated to organizations that are able to train americans to do whatever job that apparently has no local talent (colleges, trade schools, etc.. depending on what indu

That salary might be low in some places and high in others. It might be low in one industry or high in another.

This.

H1-B jobs are supposed to be paid at the prevailing wage for the position and the industry it's in. We can be cynical about how some employers scoff at this and misuse H1-Bs, but the solution is to enforce the existing law, not break it with an unworkable across-the-board salary threshold.

You need both: a requirement to pay at least the prevailing wage and a requirement to pay at least a fixed wage.

Prevailing wage should generally be best but, without a hard number, it is too easy to game. That is what the fixed minimum would come in. No matter how you classify a position to try to work around the prevailing wage requirement, you can't pay less than the fixed minimum.

The federal government pay scales are generally under market, but you get job security, a pension, and retiree medical benefits at the same subsidized cost as regular employees, all of which are unusual to non-existent in corporate America today.

Fair enough, H-1B workers should get paid TWICE the prevailing wage for their job description, then let's see if companies still argue they need H-1B workers because can't find any Americans to do the job, when the reality is they can't find Americans to do the job at the price they are paying for H-1B indentured servants. Anybody want to argue that not being able to change jobs because you're only in the country at the behest of a sponsor doesn't make you an indentured servant? Didn't think so..

Just get everyone to agree on the precise boundary of what "free trade" is. Can you buy animals? Can you buy water rights? Can you own ideas? Writing? People? What about land? What if I just have enough guns?

Your notions of property rights might seem obvious to you, but not everyone agrees with you. We, as a community, must come to a consensus. One man's free trade is another man's anarchy, and another's totalitarianism. Can't tell if I'm responding to sarcasm or not.

Just get everyone to agree on the precise boundary of what "free trade" is. Can you buy animals? Can you buy water rights? Can you own ideas? Writing? People? What about land? What if I just have enough guns?

Your notions of property rights might seem obvious to you, but not everyone agrees with you. We, as a community, must come to a consensus. One man's free trade is another man's anarchy, and another's totalitarianism.

Well, to be fair, neither Cruz or Trump are "establishment" republicans. In fact, most of the top prospective nominees on the republican side are pretty much outsider, non-establishment types. If you are an establishment republican, you are running no higher than about 5th in the polls... In my opinion, this fact is way over looked by most of the media and the significance of this way under played.

However, it is clear that candidates like Trump, Carson and Cruz are the ones with the best chance for the n